spinoff: should seller take horse back?

[chinaski]

After reading flashykatt's thread in hopes of finding a relatable answer, I think it's best to ask for opinions on my own situation.

At the beginning of February I purchased a 5 y/o (now 6) off the track Thoroughbred. We were actually able to find the ad from which the seller (the one who sold her to us) bought her, and were a bit skeptical that the asking price for this horse has been $2500 cheaper six months before. However, we were not able to get in contact with the old owner after multiple attempts and credited it to training and the sales business. We were told before we bought her that she had reared once when the seller used draw reins, but I didn't worry about that too much since she's young and it was an understandable, confining situation.

I worked with her 5-6 days a week, with high hopes for a promising show season. A month ago we went to our first show together, just a little combined test at Tadpole--2' jumps and a walk/trot dressage test. She was a bit tense in warm up, but we worked through it. We got halfway through our dressage test, she start to jig, I asked her to settle, and she reared straight up and flipped.

At the advice of from various trainers, I haven't ridden her since. We were able to get in contact with the old owner, who told us two important pieces of information that had been withheld from us.
1) She had flipped with her jockey at the track.
2) This was the result of a bone chip in her knee.

So the question is--what do we do now? I need to talk to the seller as soon as possible, but I'm not sure what is reasonable to ask from her. Should she take the horse back and refund all/partial purchase price, and which one? Should we even expect for her to take the horse back after three months have elapsed?

What would you expect someone to do if you were involved in this situation?

[Lori B]

The horse is yours.

I would be curious whether removing that chip would resolve this problem. If the horse is in pain, acting out is a predictable result in many cases.

[chinaski]

Could you please clarify why--is it because of the length of time? I'm just curious about the reasoning.

It's been removed. We had x-rays done, and there's a bit of arthritis but nothing more.

[cloudyandcallie]

caveat emptor.
Unless you are in a state where you have a warranty of merchantability statute, and unless horses fall under that statute, you have no recourse.
The general horse buying public knows or should have known that ottbs could have racing injuries and have issues from the track.
And all the more reason to have a PPE with xrays before purchase. I see where some of the Canter horses in ads say that xrays are available from the trainers. Altho if you can get a vet to xray for you it is best to have that impartial set of xrays.
A cheap horse is as expensive to train, feed, and medicate as an expensive horse.
I'd have a good vet see if removing the chip will help the horse, and I'd send the horse to a good trainer for problem horses such as Paradise Ranch in North GA.
oops just saw where chip was removed. So go directly to a problem horse trainer. Good luck.
When you buy a horse, you are not buying a new car with a warranty, you are buying a used horse, with all the issues and problems that have occurred in its lifetime. Unless you got a written warranty that the horse was perfect with no faults, you own the problem horse.

[Live2Jump]

Could owner #1 have sold the mare to owner #2 w/o disclosing these events? If so, it would not be owner #2's fault for not telling you (owner #3) - they may not have known about that, but it sounds like they did tell you what their experience w/ the mare had been.

Or maybe they didn't mention it because there had not been another incident since the knee surgery with them, so they saw no reason that this behavior would repeat? (sounds like you were at least told about the surgery since you did x-rays).

After 3 months, I don't think you could ask for a refund. The cause for her current issues could be from something totally different that happened while she was out of owner #2's control. Regardless of the sale stuff, I do hope that you find a solution. Sounds like maybe that is just how she reacts to major pain. Maybe she has something else going on physically that needs to be addressed?

[equinelaw]

http://www.equinelawsafety.org/case/sales/80

There is no way to know what would happen in either of these 2 cases. It is pretty clear that in most states hiding the dangerous propensities would not be good for the seller. But in both these cases the sellers did mention some problem, just not the full extent of the problem. Then buyer may have been aware there was something to be aware of, but it still comes down to seller knowingly and intentionally selling a horse much WORSE then they described. In the pony case they may not have known how bad it was because the stocks prevented any real harm. In this case the horse may have only reared once while in the possession of the seller. That was disclosed. If it turns out the horse reared often and it was known to the seller? I'd take the case in my state.

If you could prove they knew how BAD it was and that it was not just a one time deal or a "pill" for a certain procedure, then "as is" or buyer beware might not apply. Nor would the time period since the seller admits to selling the animal with the dangerous problem. Luckily nobody was badly hurt in these cases. If this were a million dollar injury case there are many lawyers who would jump in to take the case if the seller had assets or insurance.

I think in both cases the buyers learned a valuable lesson. I do not think sellers are learning as much as they ought. If you hide it you are screwed if someone gets hurt. If they do not get hurt, but the animal is now worthless?? That would be up to a court and the courts are saying buyer beware is not enough for no disclosure. I do not know what they would say for half truths or down-played versions of the risk.

Its all well and fine to socially disapprove of lawsuits, but as a method of protecting oneself in business its not going to help.

Buyers should ask every conceivable question and sellers should truthfully answer them and offer up any additional information that may be relevant to the sale of the horse. It should not be a game of hide and seek.

[dalpal]

All of these "Should the seller take the horse back" threads make me NEVER want to be a seller.

Good gracious, might get a phone call a year later demanding that I refund money/take horse back.

WTF? When you buy a horse, you do bear some responsiblity for what happens with the horse AFTER the purchase. If you are buying an OTTB, you know that you are buying a horse that needs mental and sometimes physical rehabbing. It comes with the terriotry.

Who protects the seller from buyers wanting to return horses? What if the buyer does something that causes mental/physical damage while the horse is in their custody and then blames the previous owner for not disclosing a bogus problem.

These threads concern me.

And yes, I HAVE been taken on a horse purchase before....lots of things not disclosed.....I blamed MYSELF for not taking more time to investigate....I rehabbed the horse to the best of my ability and ended up giving it away to one of our COTHERs to finish rehabbing/rehome. I was out about 15K when all was said and done...but it was MY fault and I learned some valuable lessons from the experience...but never once did it occur to me to go after the original owners....I shouldn't have jumped so quickly and wrote a check.

Unless you have a "trial" contract then NO, you can't expect the seller to take the horse back......the seller disclosed that the horse reared, at that point you needed to decide whether or not you were willing to deal with a horse who has learned how to rear...and not assume that it wouldn't ever happen with you. They could have chosen not to disclose that information and pretend to be shocked when you told them what happened.

[Seven-up]

Disclosing a rearer and disclosing a flipper are two different things.

From the information given, it sounds like the seller knew the horse was a flipper. I'm not saying, "The seller knew and didn't say anything" but it sure sounds that way.

I'm not a fan of returning horses because you don't like them, or they're mean, or you can't ride them, or whatever. For the most part, I feel like if you buy them, they're yours. There are only a couple instances where I think trying to return a horse is ok, and a flipper is one of them. Because of the serious danger of injury or death to both horse and rider, maybe you'd have a case.

What does the bill of sale say? Unfortunately, if there's any mention of "as is", "no guarantees..." "sale is final" --anything like that, you're stuck.

[mew]

I think it boils down to this You bought a horse that you were told reared and then it did. . . It doesn't matter why the horse reared, it shows that when placed into a situation it does not like for what ever reason its method of coping is to go up. Some horses buck and some stop some drop and do a spin, but you bought a confirmed rearer (by the seller) and have *no* right to be surprised when it then reared.

That said yes the seller might have been a smuck, with not making it clear the extent of the horses habit, they may have also been completely honest about it. And I find when buying if the seller mentions any vice at all if it is not one you can live with as 10x as described maybe not the horse for you, is a decent rule.

[Seven-up]

Again, big difference between rearing and flipping.

If someone told me a horse reared, I'd grab some mane. If someone told me a horse flipped, I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Sure, a horse that rears can flip over. But flipping is either a behavioral thing or a neurological thing, and usually a habitual thing.

[Luckydonkey]

How long has this horse been off the track? If you got her off the track in february and were jus tshowing her recently- I think you are putting a bit too much on her too fast- perhaps she needs to chill a bit mroe an have a slower training program than what you are giving her. You bought her, you own her.

[Bayou Roux]

Ditto dalpal and double ditto Luckydonkey.

[RockinHorse]

And I find when buying if the seller mentions any vice at all if it is not one you can live with as 10x as described maybe not the horse for you, is a decent rule.

I completely agree :yes:.

Also, if it is something I think I can live with I ask a lot of questions about the vice to get as much specific information as possible and make sure I am comfortable with the issue. If I loved the animal but was on the fence about the vice, I would want specific language in the contract addressing it.

[Flash44]

I just want to know how the horse Canada Dry in that lawsuit knew it was the last jump...

Horses are sensitive animals, and frequently react differently to different people. My son, who has been riding for a few years and can wtc and jump small jumps, got on a friends' walk/trot pony at a show the other weekend. The pony about took off with him. Then the little girl who was showing him got back on him and he (the pony) went back to sleep. There was no rhyme or reason to it. The same thing happened to my old horse. I was riding in the ring with a bunch of other people, and we started switching horses. My horse was having a very very mellow day. The next thing you know, he went galloping by! Apparently the rider has a "hot seat," meaning all the horses "go" for her, no particular reason.

Take a horse that has been at a specific barn for a few years, and move him to a completely new location with a new rider, new diet, new turnout situation, and don't expect the horse to change one little bit?

Some riders are just plain very effective, and if the new rider is not as effective, the horse may develop some habits. But not disclosing a habitual bad behavior is nasty.

I am so worried about my reputation sometimes I feel like I am trying to talk people OUT of buying a horse I am selling!

[FlashGordon]

All of these "Should the seller take the horse back" threads make me NEVER want to be a seller.

Good gracious, might get a phone call a year later demanding that I refund money/take horse back.

WTF? When you buy a horse, you do bear some responsiblity for what happens with the horse AFTER the purchase. If you are buying an OTTB, you know that you are buying a horse that needs mental and sometimes physical rehabbing. It comes with the terriotry.

Who protects the seller from buyers wanting to return horses? What if the buyer does something that causes mental/physical damage while the horse is in their custody and then blames the previous owner for not disclosing a bogus problem.

These threads concern me.



I very much agree dalpal. It seems purchasers never want to take any responsibility for their choices and decisions and immediately pin it on the seller when things go awry.

Seems there is an awful lot of liability these days in selling, despite how much disclosure and info you provide the buyer. In fact sometimes I think the more honest you are, and the more information you provide, and the more you care about where the horse ends up... the more buyers seem to rake you over the coals. :confused:

[equinelaw]

Full disclosure keeps you safe. No or half disclosure gets you into trouble.

[MistyBlue]

But isn't full disclosure usually on habitual issues or physical defects?
If a horse bucked once with a seller in 10 years of ownership due to a fly bite and doesn't tell the buyer...and a year later that horse gets bit again by a fly and bucks then the seller can get in legal trouble?
If true...the law sucks out loud.

[lilblackhorse]

Ditto dalpal and double ditto Luckydonkey.


ding ding ding.

and I concur with whomever said they'd not want to be a seller with this mindset of buyers now. Again, caveat emptor ......

[FlashGordon]

I do agree there needs to be more transparency when it comes to horse dealings, particularly at the higher price ranges where there are agents and pros and all sorts of people in on things.

Personally though I think things can get really muddy when you are talking about joe schmo average owner buying/selling to the same. So much can be left to interpretation, and even with full disclosure, things can change. A buyer coming back 3 or 6 or 9 months later, unhappy, seems a little unfair.

[equinelaw]

But isn't full disclosure usually on habitual issues or physical defects?
If a horse bucked once with a seller in 10 years of ownership due to a fly bite and doesn't tell the buyer...and a year later that horse gets bit again by a fly and bucks then the seller can get in legal trouble?
If true...the law sucks out loud.

If the seller says "this horse has only bucked once and that was when a fly bit him" it shouldn't kill the sale. Now if seller does not mention it and horse bucks off new owner and new owner gets killed, was it worth not mentioning? Or if seller honestly does not remember is that hiding anything?

But if seller sells horse known to buck and hurt people and says nothing and buyer manages to NOT get killed for 6 months, why should seller be off the hook when buyer dies and family finds out seller tried to sell horse to rodeo for 6 months as the worlds best bucking horse? If the horse never did anything before then 6 hours after the sale is too late.

But in these 2 cases the horses were known to do something dangerous--its only degree and how disclosed it was that is in question. Is it habitual? With the pony its sounds like yes, with this mare that is the question. Did seller know horse not only reared with them but also flipped on the track too? Seller might not have known that at all.

[dalpal]

Full disclosure keeps you safe. No or half disclosure gets you into trouble.


Yeah, but....who's to say you give FULL disclosure and then someone accuses you of NOT giving it?

For all we know of either of these threads, the persons were indeed told the full story, but it makes their case stronger to "forget" some of the details.

I'm speaking hypothetically here



I've had my horse all her life (8 years)....Goodness, what if I forget a bump or a scratch from her two year old days....can someone accuse me of NOT giving full disclosure? What if I've ony had the horse a month and don't know all of it's habits...and the horse rears/flips (All I knew was that it rears), but am I in trouble for not giving "full disclosure" because another person from the horse's past, tells the buyer that they knew the horse flipped over before?

I just wish people would take responsiblity and realize that it is an ANIMAL that can do unpredictable things. But so many want to just get their money back, regardless of the time that the horse has been in their custody. And godforbid, if the owner, HONESTLY just gives their own personal assesment..it then gets construed as a lie or deceptive because the new owner wouldn't have described it in such a manner. Ladies and gentlemen....ask questions, make an informed decision. Heck, do what I do....buy horses that YOU Know. In all seriousness, in my adult life, I have bought ONE horse that I didn't know..that was the one who ended up being a lemon. If you are afraid of being taken, stick to horses/people that you actually know history.

[poltroon]

A young, green OTTB that has reared, and it's mentioned that has reared, is IMHO inherently a buyer beware situation. This kind of horse is not expected to be reliable nor is it suitable for a novice. You owned it when you took it away, you've been riding the horse, and horses sometimes do scary things. I would not expect the seller to do anything.

The case of the pony is quite different in my mind, because first of all, it is a pony, and you know that children will be handling it, and secondly, the issue was worming, not something you do every day, and it does not appear to me that that problem was properly disclosed. What troubles me about the pony's case is (a) that if it had been fully disclosed, the accident was completely preventable with a feed-through worming, and (b), that the pony didn't just strike and try to get away, but actively attacked and had to be pulled off the adult. That is not normal equine behavior. The pony probably can be managed, but after the accident, probably needs a new family who fully knows the pony's issue.

Even in the case of the pony, the seller may not be obligated to take the pony back. But, if I were the seller, in that very specific instance, I would.

[Sabovee]

This is exactly why I'm getting out of selling. Buyers now are becoming unbelievable!!

I had a woman email me all upset over a horse I sold her 5 months ago. He WASN'T started when I sold him, now she's upset because she sent him away for training and he has started stopping in the canter when she becomes unbalanced (not dirty stopping, just coming down to a halt). SERIOUSLY!?!?!

How the HELL am I suppose to have control over the behaviours of a horse I DIDN'T EVEN TRAIN UNDER SADDLE?

Sorry OP - After 3 months the horse is yours (hell, as soon as the money changes hands and the contract is signed the horse is yours). Instead of blaming the seller perhaps you should have taken it upon yourself to research your horse further and do a PPE.

I fully disclose everything I know about a horse when I sell it, but I don't have xray vision or the ability to see in to the future.

[GettingBack]

Are you kidding me Sabovee? That is UN-Real. Hopefully she was just trying to give you an update. Hopefully....Hopefully....

I've bought horses that weren't suitable after the "settling in period". I figure it was my fault for not trying them better. I bought a mare with a ton of undisclosed issues, but I figured them all out and we were fine. I wish I had known, because I would have approached training her a different way, but it wasn't a big deal.

[trubandloki]

Add me to the crowd that finds this 'nothing is my fault' attitude ridiculous and just play scary. :eek:

The seller said the horse reared. The buyer knew the horse reared. And now the buyer is shocked that the horse rears :confused: .


And I guess I have been wrong, because I have never divided the rearing and flipping thing. Any horse that rears has the chance of going over on any of those rears and then they have flipped.

[equinelaw]

No seller can be in the hook for not disclosing things they did not know. We are talking about possibly life threatening behaviors that the sellers may have known about. The questions asked "should the seller take the horse/pony back'?
I am simply pointing out that since they knew about the problem, admitted they knew about it at the time of sale, probably knew that created a dangerous situation and did not manage to fully inform the buyer through writing or words, yes, they should take the animal back before someone gets killed and they REALLY have something to worry about. Forget about the consumer protection laws or a contract problem, the liability problem if and when those animals hurt someone is enough to make it advisable for the seller to take the horse back to protect themselves.

You sell a purse and the buyer decides they do not like it them you have very little worry about that the purse might kill someone. You sell a pony that responds to pressure situations with aggression or a horse that flips then you better make sure the dangers are known and get it in writing.

So many posters seem to think these problems are easily fixed or avoided that it should not kill all sales to be 100% honest. Not a fortune teller or a psychic, but honest about what you are selling. Because these sellers were previously the buyers of these animals and they sure didn't just suck it up and give the animals away for free when they found out about the problems, so why should the next person in line be the one to do that?

The first person to discover the dangerous propensities and become aware of them should be the one to carry the burden of selling the horse with those problems. Its should not fall to the first person with a conscience or healthy fear of liability to eat the loss. Hiding or minimizing a behavior issue is just like hiding a lameness issue, but not only is the product defective, its also dangerous.

Telling the 100% truth is very good protection. That means if the horse starts doing something after the sale there is and can be no proof the seller knew about it before the sale--because the seller didn't. Its knowing and selling the horse anyway and not fully disclosing the problem that can get you into trouble--not just selling a horse that some day might do something bad. In these cases 100% truth may have been to just say "that pony is dangerous to worm. Use feed through", In the case of the horse the seller may have given full disclosure--she reared once in draw reins. The buyer chose to accept that risk. But what if the seller knew she reared once with them and had been warned off the track for flipping on riders? Still OK? Still full disclosure?

There are too issues here: was the horse suitable for the intended purpose and was the seller liable for some future serious injury? One issue might be a battle over the price of the horse. The other issue might be a battle over everything the seller owns and more.

Traditionally, telling the truth was not a part of the usual practice of horse sales. That is not something to fight to protect. Its a way of doing business that should end. Do not confuse that with predicting the future or other arguments that take a set of facts to the absurd extreme conclusion. Remember, these new buyers not only have to deal with the horse they bought, but they also have the liability of now owning a horse with known dangerous propensities. They bought a horse, not a lawsuit waiting to happen. And sellers should sell a horse, not a lawsuit waiting to happen.

The only opinions that matter are those of the judges. It took one minute to find a case where the judges said Nope, they knew and should have told. There is no reason to get out of selling if you are not hiding anything. If you are, then bye bye thanks!

[LarissaL]

But what's dangerous to one rider isn't to another. Are we, as sellers, now supposed to read the buyer completely in addition to having to explain the horse completely?

This past weekend I was involved in a ridiculous sales attempt. Not my horses, but I was helping show them. A woman bought a BROKE, sweet horse 2 months ago and decided he was unpredictable when he shook after getting wet on a trail ride (as in the "wet dog" shake, not the twitching at a fly). She wanted to "return" him and buy another. Needless to say, I was not enthused trying to sell a horse to a woman upset over a horse being a horse.

I think the seller in the OP should have mentioned what she was told from the previous owner (if, indeed, she was), but I do think she was adequately straightforward with the horse's issue. A buyer shouldn't assume the horse only acts out in circumstances the seller describes, but that the horse has the capability to do those actions whenever frustrated.

As a seller, I try to describe the horse's better attributes in terms of actions and his worse ones in broader terms. For example, I'll not say he's "quiet" but that I've ridden him at night, in the rain, on trails alone, etc without incident. But also that I can't speak to his attitude in situations other than that. I won't say he's "not spooky" but just that he's not minded dogs, running children, umbrellas, overturned jump standards, puddles, deer, etc. I bring up his faults in more general terms.. I always mention the horse's particular type of balkiness.. ie, he tends to pop up in front, leaps sideways, has a killer twisty buck, etc. I don't say "he gets set off by..", I just say what he tends to react with.

I have no idea if that would protect me in a lawsuit, but I am pretty thorough about pairing my horses with the right buyers so hopefully it wouldn't arise.

Best of luck to the OP. I wouldn't expect that the seller will offer any refunds. I don't think they have an obligation to. The horse's behavior shouldn't have been expected to be limited to draw reins or otherwise restrictive situations. The seller noted that was her experience with the horse. It's the buyer's responsibility to give thought to what that says about the horse's personality, not to just take it at face value. As we all know, a lot of horsemanship is about reading the horse. No one should expect the SELLER to do that for you. Bring an expert or be your own expert to do the reading as a buyer.

[Iron Horse Farm]

But what's dangerous to one rider isn't to another. Are we, as sellers, now supposed to read the buyer completely in addition to having to explain the horse completely?


THis is my question too.

I have seen several overfaced young horses rear just because they were so "brain fried" by whatever particular situation that they just couldn't go anywhere but up. One of them was mine - a young off the track boy who schooled well at home, but the first show that I took him to they played "The Call to the Post" and he just lost his brain. I took him to a known trainer who thought at first that I was the problem since she had no trouble schooling im either. THen we went to a show! We ended up going to lots of show as "spectators", just walking for hours and using the warm up ring before we ever got back into the ring. Getting off and letting him win was never an option.

My point.............did I ever think about calling the seller and demanding a refund? NO.

Did he rear at the track? I don't know but my guess would be ....probably.